Apple has faced heaps of criticism over its decision to ditch Google as the data source for iOS 6's rebuilt Maps app. Though it looks great and adds turn-by-turn driving directions, users have been stymied by incorrect or incomplete data and the loss of integrated public transit directions. The problems are bad enough that Apple CEO Tim Cook made a public apology, promising to fix the situation.

In the meantime, however, Cook recommended users check out a variety of other map and navigation solutions, including apps like MapQuest, Waze, and Bing, and mobile Web-based alternatives like Google Maps and Nokia Maps. There are other solutions, particularly turn-by-turn navigation apps like Garmin and Navigon, which can cost up to $40. But Cook's suggestions are free, and worth considering. We decided to compare his suggested options and see which one might be the best alternative.

We tested each app by searching for the John Hancock Building in downtown Chicago. We also looked at the various directions and options, and compared the usability. Unfortunately, none of these apps is a complete replacement for Apple's Maps UI married to Google's mapping data. Each has its pros and cons, and we summarize them below.

MapQuest

Some users may remember MapQuest as the mapping website everyone used in the '90s before Google Maps came around about seven years ago. Before then, taking road trips usually involved printing out directions from MapQuest and combining them with relevant maps or atlases, as the directions were not always spot on.

But it's 2012, and I found that MapQuest's iOS app works well enough. Its primary function seems to be identifying nearby points of interest, such as hotels, restaurants, airports, parking garages, and gas stations. Tap a button for one of these types of locations along the bottom, and it will identify them on the current map representation. It also apparently has sponsored results for Holiday Inn, Comfort Suites, and other hotel chains.

But it unfortunately has several quirks which I found annoying. When I searched for the John Hancock Building in downtown Chicago, MapQuest didn't automatically center the map on the most likely matching result. Instead, it showed another place with "building" in the name nearby. I had to manually move the map to where I already knew the building was located before it showed me matches that were actually at the correct address. If you already know the exact address, though, MapQuest can direct you better.

Once you find the location you want, tap a "Go" button to get turn-by-turn directions. You can view a list of the directions, or swipe to move along from one step to the next. It will also optionally provide voice-based directions using what sounds like Siri's voice. The directions seemed pretty straightforward, and (thankfully) correct. But MapQuest doesn't do walking or transit directions; it's for drivers only.

One last complaint is that MapQuest's map tiles aren't "Retina-ready," so they are pixelated and a bit blurry. I wouldn't call it unusable, but it can make viewing maps difficult for many users on the iPhone 5, 4S, or 4.

Waze

Waze is largely for navigation. Users run the app while they are driving, and it crowdsources up-to-the-minute traffic information, optionally rerouting users to areas with less congestion. Users can also submit information about the location of accidents or traffic hazards, police speed traps, red light cameras, and local gas prices.

Otherwise, you can search for an address, place, or contact, and Waze will give you turn-by-turn directions with a nicely styled 3D road view. You'll get voice-based directions, along with how far you have to go and an approximate ETA based on traffic conditions. The voice is a little scratchy and distorted, but otherwise works well. Directions seemed appropriate, and reroutes were also accurate.

Like MapQuest, Waze is for drivers, so there are no walking or transit direction here either. The graphics are a little cutesy, but they're sharp and easy to see, especially at a distance.

Bing

Microsoft's Bing app for iOS has maps among its many other features. The maps look clean and sharp, if a bit plain, though the style makes it feel as though you're using Windows Phone and not iOS. It can presumably do directions, but unfortunately it couldn't locate the John Hancock Building, nor could it find any of several nearby Tony's grocery stores. Bing kept trying to point me to a John Hancock building in Boston, even when I used the search term "chicago." When Senior Apple Editor Jacqui Cheng used Bing to get transit directions, the app often gave her a plethora of options that did not include the fastest or most direct route.

Bing's interface is very fast and smooth, and looks quite nice. Unfortunately, I couldn't get any accurate search results, so I quickly gave up. I've heard a lot of good things about Bing's search versus Google's, but this experience left me wanting.

Google Maps

Rumor has it that Google is working on a native iOS Google Maps app. In the meantime, however, you can use the Web-based, HTML5 app instead, which can be pinned to the Springboard. Users who liked the previous Maps apps from iOS 5 will probably feel most at home with this alternative. It looks like Google Maps, it provides directions for driving, walking, transit, and cycling, and tends to have accurate search results and points-of-interest.

The HTML5-based interface isn't "native" smooth, which is a bit of a frustration. It also doesn't do turn-by-turn navigation, but it will give a good list of directions.

Like MapQuest, the map tiles themselves aren't Retina-ready, so they appear pixelated. The low resolution is especially annoying using the default hybrid satellite view, so you'll likely want to switch to the standard road view.

UPDATE: A reader pointed out that basic road map tiles are now actually being served at Retina resolution on supported devices. Pins, routes, and other indicators are not, nor are satellite-based photographic map images. The quality is still less than ideal, but as we noted above, you'll have a better experience switching off the satellite view.

A native app would be better, but this is probably the next best thing from Google for the time being.

Nokia Maps

Nokia also has its own mapping solution, and offers a free, Web-based version. Like Google Maps, the HTML5 interface doesn't include high-resolution map tiles, but the style and typeface Nokia uses looks a little better in comparison.

Nokia Maps can show different layers of map data, like Google Maps does, including satellite, public transit, and live traffic views. Searches were accurate, and points-of-interest include data from Lonely Planet and other sources. Essentially, the experience in our limited testing is very similar to using Google Maps, except it has a decidedly "Nokia-esque" interface.

Unlike other apps above, Nokia Maps will do driving, walking, and transit directions, including ETAs. This is probably a good alternative to Google Maps, but there's no particular feature that I could really point to that would recommend it over Google's Web app.

Recommendation

Google Maps is our top choice, considering its large and accurate data set, in addition to transit directions. Waze is a good turn-by-turn navigation app, and the extra traffic data could be especially useful in busy urban areas. These two apps are free, and should cover all your needs.

It's hard to recommend Bing based on our testing; after all, it couldn't get us to one of Chicago's most recognized landmarks. Its search results might be better in your area, though, and from a UI perspective, it's at least the smoothest and nicest looking app. MapQuest's interface did make it difficult to search around and zero in on an actual destination. If you know the exact address already, though, it does provide nice turn-by-turn directions and voice prompts. Nokia Maps is a worthy contender, but it didn't offer any particular stand-out feature compared to Google Maps.

Do any of them have streetview or an equivalent feature? I was constantly using streetview to do things like check for bike racks, or familiarizing myself with tricky intersections before taking my bike out.

Do any of them have streetview or an equivalent feature? I was constantly using streetview to do things like check for bike racks, or familiarizing myself with tricky intersections before taking my bike out.

StreetView is also handy as hell for driving to some place you don't know. I used it last week when I drove right by a restaurant I was supposed to meet some people at. It gives you a nice visual of what you should look for when you get to your destination.

"It's hard to recommend Bing based on our testing; after all, it couldn't get us to one of Chicago's most recognized landmarks. Its search results might be better in your area, though..."

If Bing can't locate the Hancock buildingin Chicago I'm going to seriously doubt it would be better in Des Moines, Ia. Bing sounds as bad as Apple Maps.

No surprise that the service that Apple dumped is the best alternative, I'm at a loss how Apple didn't know about the problems it's mapping solution was having and still let it out the door. Talk about cutting ones nose to spite it's face...

Nokia maps worked shockingly well on my Galaxy Nexus. The browsers on Android have always been a little clunky with HTML5 web apps in my experience (not as big a detriment as using iOS, mind you) but Nokia's almost felt like a native app. Google Maps in the browser also felt more responsive than I remembered, but not as responsive as Nokia Maps. Maybe Jelly Bean fixed the responsiveness of the browsers when dealing with non static websites by triple buffering too? Hmm.

My search for the Hancock building in Chicago on bing.com/maps seems to work if you use hancock center instead of Hancock building. Searching for Hancock building gives you an adress for the Signature lounge, which appears to be in the Hancock center, and probably good enough for navigation purposes.

I really wish any of the map testers for blogging sites DIDN'T live in the city. I know that they're important to some, but not everybody cares about walking/public transport directions. It would be nice to know how the actual maps and directions work in the real world.

I really wish any of the map testers for blogging sites DIDN'T live in the city. I know that they're important to some, but not everybody cares about walking/public transport directions. It would be nice to know how the actual maps and directions work in the real world.

I really wish any of the map testers for blogging sites DIDN'T live in the city. I know that they're important to some, but not everybody cares about walking/public transport directions. It would be nice to know how the actual maps and directions work in the real world.

Point taken, but *hint* cities exist in the real world.

Yes, but since there's probably one big city per state, there's a whole lot of country left that people live in...

Do any of them have streetview or an equivalent feature? I was constantly using streetview to do things like check for bike racks, or familiarizing myself with tricky intersections before taking my bike out.

StreetView is also handy as hell for driving to some place you don't know. I used it last week when I drove right by a restaurant I was supposed to meet some people at. It gives you a nice visual of what you should look for when you get to your destination.

According to Walt Mossberg at the WSJ, streetview in the browser version of google maps for iOS (iPhone and iPad) will be announced today and presumably available today.

I really wish any of the map testers for blogging sites DIDN'T live in the city. I know that they're important to some, but not everybody cares about walking/public transport directions. It would be nice to know how the actual maps and directions work in the real world.

More people live in urban and suburban areas than live in rural areas. Cities also have more complex navigational challenges than do smaller towns.

I really like some features of Waze, particulary the crowd-sourced data on traffic hazards, cops, etc. I found it really helpful when driving in NJ to know how far ahead the current traffic backup was, and whether or not to stick it out.

Where Waze falls short is alternate routes, particularly on how they are visualized. I was driving home from Fort Lee, NJ to Woodbridge, NJ, and the most direct way is the NJ Turnpike. That day there was a huge fire at the Meadowlands and the Turnpike was closed. So when I open the app and try and get an alternate route home, every single route showed using the Turnpike/I-95. The routes didn't highlight the differences.

A better experience is on my Garmin Nuvi, which has a "Detour" button that I can hit, then choose if I need a 1, 5, 10 or 15 mile detour. So I can tell the app that there's something wrong nearby for it to route me around, then get me on a main road. With Waze you get multiple identical looking route tiles that all listed "I-95" as the main road, with no idea of what's different. If Waze got a better Detour function, I'd be much happier about using it.

What I wound up buying months ago was the Garmin North America app, the one with offline map data. I did a large road trip in Southern Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona, in areas that have large swaths with zero cell coverage on any network. It worked quite well. While it might not always have the most up to date POIs, I could always feed it an address, and it worked offline quite happily. I like the overall look of Waze better, but when you're driving outside of a metropolitan area, you're going to run into areas with no data coverage, and you'd better have offline maps for that.

Another problem I'm seeing with these map app roundups is that they're focused on large US cities. For example, Consumer Reports did a shootout with Apple Maps and Google Maps, but in New York City, which I'm sure is over-represented in POIs and location data. I'd much rather see it try and navigate to Hole in the Rock, Utah, or European cities to really get a sense of the quality. Anywhere outside of the big metro areas. At least here you highlighted one of the problems, searching for a common building name, that highlights where Google has really mastered the search.

EDIT: Here's a screenshot of the problem I have with Waze routes - no data to choose which route I want! Do I want the one with a cop or the one without a cop?

So, I find Google Maps results to be significantly better than Bing when it comes to (i) landmarks, (ii) location-sensitive results (where you want the closest match near you), and (iii) for mispellings and word substitutions.

I hadn't had your specific issue with Bing, though, so I went and tested it.

Apparently the "John Hancock Building" actually is in Boston. In fact, there are three "John Hancock Buildings" in Boston.

So, Bing finds it if you (i) don't search for exactly John Hancock Building, or (ii) if you use a comma to indicate location ala "john hancock building, chicago" (Google has much better query parsing for ambiguous queries).

So Bing is "technically correct" but still sucks in comparison to Google, which deals with user error much more robustly than Bing.

I really wish any of the map testers for blogging sites DIDN'T live in the city. I know that they're important to some, but not everybody cares about walking/public transport directions. It would be nice to know how the actual maps and directions work in the real world.

More people live in urban and suburban areas than live in rural areas. Cities also have more complex navigational challenges than do smaller towns.

I really wish any of the map testers for blogging sites DIDN'T live in the city. I know that they're important to some, but not everybody cares about walking/public transport directions. It would be nice to know how the actual maps and directions work in the real world.

More people live in urban and suburban areas than live in rural areas. Cities also have more complex navigational challenges than do smaller towns.

I was talking about the suburbs.

In that case, I agree with you. I live in a suburban area, and I would like to see more information about some of the secondary features, for instance Waze's speed trap functionality. How well does it work in a suburban area?

This short overview missed a lot of detail on Waze, which I've been using for probably about a year. First, saying that it just croudsources traffic data doesn't do it justice. The real benefit to the data is that Waze learns average travel times on every road, at every time of day. Even when it doesn't have enough users in an area to know traffic at a particular moment (a likely scenario), it has a database with every trip and turn its users have taken in the area in the past. As a result its arrival time predictions are spot on, literally to +/- a minute or two about half the time and normally close otherwise.

I use Waze to get to work everyday so I've been able to watch it learn from a day to day basis. Again, this isn't it routing me around today's traffic, which it may do to a certain extent, this is it learning how long every road and turn took from previous days data. Does making a left onto elm from main take a really long time? It will know or learn. Is that light really slow - it will know or learn.

On top of that Waze, is an A app. Often with free apps you expect some rough edges. There are really none here. The app is very easy to use (with the exception of location searching), responsive and reliable.

Regarding Waze. It's really awesome as a GPS when driving, pretty lousy for anything else. It won't give ypu great walking instructions or show you exactly where things are but it is VERY good for driving and avoiding traffic.

I HIGHLY recommend it, but you must also know that the data is crowd sourced, which means maps could be incomplete in rural areas, but also that everyone can help complete them, which is really fun.

Here's a question I have. If people are using Bing or Google or Nokia instead of Apple maps, how is Apple going to get enough user data to correct its own maps?

The issue is NOT the millions of people who will try alternate map programs, it's the number of people who will use the default app, plus Apple's fine-tuning its third-party databases.

My own guess is that Google will produce a very nice iOS maps app, and that maybe half of all iOS users will download it after its prompt approval. But a huge majority of users won't try to get clever, and when the others ask Siri to show how to get to the Hancock building, or tap on a contact's address to see how to drive there, iOS will use Maps, resulting in 90%+ of all maps going the Apple Maps way, anyway.

Cook's apology / recommendation will end up being a PR success — it defanged the haters pretty promptly — without costing Apple more than a tiny share of map/driving business.

In the town where I live, there is a restaurant called "Peace China". When I search for it with Google maps, the map app drops a pin on the this exact restaurant that is quite close to my office. Exactly what I'm looking for.

*Every* other map app I have tested, when presented with the exact same search and aware of my location, will only drop pins in THE COUNTRY OF CHINA. This is a pretty epic fail, I think.

I have tested Apple, google, Nokia, Bing, but not Mapquest.

You could probably adopt this test easily for your location. Pretty much any town has a restaurant with "China" in the name.

Google seems to beat them all, not just in data accuracy, but in search relevance to location. Although I'm sure the two are correlated.

… I'd much rather see it try and navigate to Hole in the Rock, Utah, or European cities to really get a sense of the quality.

This is kinda tricky. I used the iOS5 (Google-based) app to mislocate a restaurant in Quito, Ecuador when I was there recently. (Google missed by about 8 blocks despite having a street intersection given.)

Next time I fired up the app, I got entirely different map result—the address was unknown and I only got a generic downtown map. Apparently, Google licenses different maps and quality in different locations. This is consistent with licensing terms that I read for other services, too.

On the presumption that you care most intently about an address when you're in the same country, a US-based search might be unhelpful.

Here's all you need to know: Use Apple's app unless your city doesn't have a iOS 6-compatible transit app (it probably does), or you need sidewalk and building data for walking directions like on college campuses or large cities. In those cases, use Google's web app.

Why didn't you include apple maps in the comparison. When I compared them, I often found that apple maps worked better. It is a huge oversight to not include it. It's silly to assume apple maps doesn't work. It's Siri integration and navigation is a huge advantage.

I've been using the Apple Maps heavily since I received my new iPhone early last week and I think it's pretty good. I live in New York City but I've spent most of the past week on a motorcycle ride through PA, MD, VA, and WV in areas I've never been to before. Several of those areas didn't have any cell service what so ever and the Apple Maps could still locate me provide me a map that I could zoom in and out of and continue to use. A lot of my ride was spent away from major highways on secondary and back roads and Apple Maps turn-by-turn worked perfectly.

When it came to searching for businesses or points-of-interest it successfully found what I was looking for 9 times out of 10. A few times I switched to the web version of GMAPS but mostly b/c I wanted to see if it would provide more suggestions and also I did have a specific ride route saved in my Google account that I referred to a couple of times.

When it comes down to it I would use Apple Maps over any of these alternatives for my regular map needs. I think this issue is overblown. Hopefully Apple's database of businesses and POIs will improve quickly but it's not a deal breaker for me. I do miss street view quite a bit.

In NYC the lack of fully integrated transit directions sucks but the integration with 3rd party apps does work just fine although the extra step or two is kind of annoying. I've been pairing Apple Maps with iTrans NYC, which I use to use alongside Google Maps anyway.

In the town where I live, there is a restaurant called "Peace China". When I search for it with Google maps, the map app drops a pin on the this exact restaurant that is quite close to my office. Exactly what I'm looking for.

*Every* other map app I have tested, when presented with the exact same search and aware of my location, will only drop pins in THE COUNTRY OF CHINA. This is a pretty epic fail, I think.

I have tested Apple, google, Nokia, Bing, but not Mapquest.

You could probably adopt this test easily for your location. Pretty much any town has a restaurant with "China" in the name.

Google seems to beat them all, not just in data accuracy, but in search relevance to location. Although I'm sure the two are correlated.

On my desktop, I went to maps.google.com and found a “Peace China” in Raleigh proposed as I typed “ ‘Peace China’ Resta…”. But after I selected that suggestion, I got a map of the US West Coast, highlighting Chinese places in SF (my current location), LA and Vancouver with “Peace Soup” or on “Peace Street.”

So Google maps can be both clever and stupid. Had I not seen “Raleigh” pop up in the suggestions list — say, if I had been on a slow 3G link—I'm not sure I'd have found it with Google.

Then I typed “Peace Restaurant Raleigh” into Apple Maps/iOS6. Immediately got a pin-drop plus 26 Yelp reviews for a place near US70/US401, which sounds right. Right?

I don't know Apple's algorithm but presume that current location is passed to the search. If it doesn't work with just “Peace China” today—perhaps you searched from a nearby suburb with a different name?—it'd be interesting to track how long it takes Apple to get smarter.

... Cook's apology / recommendation will end up being a PR success — it defanged the haters pretty promptly — without costing Apple more than a tiny share of map/driving business.

I'm not so sure about that: don't you think all the bad publicity lowers people's opinion of Apple's products in general? Even a major newspaper here had a prominent cartoon where you see two people wading through chest-high water, holding phones as if navigating: "With Apple Mapps, our travels are never boring". Ah, found it:

I have no idea what's going on with Bing on iOS. On Windows Phone, I just typed "John Hancock Building" into the search box in Maps, and it found it right away. And I live on the west coast.

CORRECTION: I just rechecked my results, and in fact Bing finds a "John Hancock Building" in Boston, not Chicago. In Chicago, it finds "John Hancock Center" as others have reported. (I did the original search on my phone and didn't zoom out far enough to see the city name... not being familiar with Chicago I assumed the hit was correct--apologies.)

I'm reasonably happy with Apple Maps - I kept the Google Maps web bookmark on my homescreen as backup but I haven't had to use it (I'm in Los Angeles, but also used Apple Maps in the suburbs outside of Chicago for a weekend).

I have to admit, I never used transit directions in the old Maps app. Maybe I'm old school but in NYC, the subway lines were easy enough to figure out with the classic 1979 map they have plastered in all the stations, and I was never a huge bus rider. But even so, my favorite subway maps app (Kickmap) just got updated to work with the transit API and is pretty cool. Even if I no longer live in NYC